Douglas Woodruff Hillman

This case involves long-running desegregation litigation concerning the Benton Harbor Area School District and interdistrict transfer programs with neighboring districts. The court denied motions to exclude expert testimony from witnesses on both sides. It granted the school district and state defendants' motions for unitary status, thereby abrogating most prior remedial and injunctive orders while preserving limited ongoing obligations related to student transportation, funding formulas, and pupil membership counts that phase out over several years. The court dismissed the case with prejudice but retained jurisdiction over attorney fees and costs.

civil rights

This case concerned whether the Grand Traverse Band could legally operate Class III gaming at its Turtle Creek Casino under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Band sought a declaratory judgment that the facility was lawful, while the State of Michigan intervened to argue that the operations violated IGRA and the tribal-state compact because the land was acquired after 1988 and lacked required approvals. Following a bench trial, the court held that the Turtle Creek site qualified for the restored-lands exception under 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii) as lands taken into trust in connection with the Band's restoration to federal recognition, making the gaming lawful. The court also rejected the State's compact claim, finding that the agreement did not extend the Governor's concurrence power to restored-lands sites. Judgment was entered for the Band.

federal powerbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case was a diversity action by United Rentals against former employee Jerry Keizer, Grant Rent-All, and related parties, alleging breach of a five-year employment agreement with a non-compete clause, violation of the Michigan Trade Secrets Act, tortious interference with business relations and contract, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty, along with Keizer's counterclaim for breach of the employment agreement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims against them and to United Rentals on the counterclaim, while denying United Rentals' motion on its breach count. The core reasoning was that the non-compete agreement expressly excluded Newaygo County (where Grant Rent-All primarily operated and where the parties knew of Keizer's interest at signing), the integrated employment agreement was not breached by Keizer's conduct, and there was no evidence supporting the other claims such as trade secret misappropriation or interference.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a 35-year-old school desegregation lawsuit that began in 1967 when African American students in the Benton Harbor Area School District sued local and state education officials over discriminatory practices that created unlawful segregation. Liability was established in the 1970s, leading to a 1981 remedial desegregation plan that included student transfers, magnet programs, faculty reassignment, and achievement initiatives, which was implemented under court supervision for over two decades. The Benton Harbor district and Michigan state defendants moved for unitary status to terminate oversight, opposed by the plaintiff class. After sixteen days of testimony and review of extensive evidence, the court granted the motions, concluding that the defendants had complied with the remedial order, eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable, and that current achievement gaps were attributable to poverty rather than ongoing segregative effects.

civil rights

This case concerned a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's attempt to avoid Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation's security interest in a mobile home that qualified as a fixture on the debtors' real property. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the trustee, ruling that Chase had not perfected its interest because it failed to obtain a corrected certificate of title under the Michigan Mobile Home Commission Act. On appeal, the district court reversed and held that the lien was not avoidable. The court reasoned that the MHCA's titling requirements apply only to UCC financing statements for mobile homes and do not displace the ordinary rule that a properly recorded real estate mortgage perfects a security interest in fixtures attached to the property.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for cleanup costs at a severely contaminated chemical manufacturing site in Muskegon, Michigan. After a Supreme Court remand establishing standards for parent company operator liability, the court determined that CPC International, Inc. was not liable as an operator of the facility run by its subsidiary. The decision rested on findings that CPC did not directly manage or control the plant's operations, with the subsidiary maintaining independent control, and no evidence showing CPC's direct involvement in the polluting activities.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a consumer class action against Dale Baker Oldsmobile alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act and Michigan state laws, including the MVISCA, MVSFA, and MCPA, for the dealership's failure to provide customers in its special finance department with copies of their retail installment sales contracts at the time of signing. The court ruled on multiple pending motions, including the defendant's requests to decertify the class, reconsider a prior damages ruling under the MVISCA, and obtain judgment on the pleadings as to TILA, MVISCA, replevin, and unjust enrichment claims, along with plaintiffs' motions to strike the dispositive motions and add class members. The court denied the motion to decertify the class and the motion for reconsideration, denied judgment on the pleadings for the TILA and MVISCA claims, granted judgment on the pleadings for replevin and unjust enrichment, and denied both plaintiffs' motions. These rulings rested on the scope of the previously certified class, the court's earlier partial summary judgment findings, statutory interpretations of available remedies and limitations periods, and requirements for timely opt-in or opt-out responses to class notices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a decades-long school desegregation action filed in 1967 by African-American parents against the Benton Harbor Area School District and other defendants, including state and neighboring district entities, alleging unconstitutional segregation practices. After findings of liability and entry of a remedial desegregation plan, the current dispute concerns preparation for a unitary status hearing and specifically which party bears the burden of proof on whether vestiges of past discrimination in student achievement gaps have been eliminated to the extent practicable. The court denied the defendants' motion in limine and granted the plaintiffs' motion, holding that defendants carry the burden. The core reasoning is that plaintiffs had previously established that the achievement disparities resulted from the defendants' segregative conduct, making the defendants adjudicated wrongdoers responsible for demonstrating that remaining vestiges have been remedied as far as practicable, consistent with authority such as Jenkins XIV.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a former employee's claim for disability pension benefits under an ERISA-governed retirement plan after she had voluntarily left her job in 1993 and was later determined disabled by the Social Security Administration in 1998. The plan administrator denied the benefits, concluding that the plan required the claimant to be an active employee at the time the disability occurred. The court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review because the plan granted discretionary authority to the administrator, examined the plan documents and found that the definition of "Permanent Disability" tied eligibility to an individual's status as an "Employee." The court upheld the denial as rational and consistent with the plan provisions, granting judgment for the defendant and dismissing the action.

labor & employment

This case involves plaintiffs bringing claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act and Michigan statutes (MVISCA, MVSFA, and MCPA) alleging that defendant Dale Baker Oldsmobile failed to deliver copies of motor vehicle retail installment sales contracts at execution and otherwise violated disclosure requirements. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability, and the present motion in limine sought to bar evidence of finance charges as damages under the Michigan statutes on the ground that those laws provide no such civil remedies. The court denied the motion, concluding that finance charges are recoverable under the MVISCA's remedy provision for contracts that do not substantially comply with statutory requirements, even though they are unavailable as actual damages under the MVSFA or MCPA. The core reasoning rested on the plain text of the MVISCA, which expressly bars sellers from recovering finance charges for violations such as nondelivery of the contract, making evidence of those charges relevant and admissible.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who alleged that their mortgage holder violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by misleading them about insurance coverage and account status after a fire destroyed their home, leading to disputes over insurance proceeds and threats of foreclosure. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims for non-economic damages such as mental distress under the Act's provision allowing recovery of "actual damages." The court denied the motion, holding that Michigan precedent permits recovery of such damages when they are the legal and natural consequences of the wrongful conduct and reasonably could have been anticipated, and that the complaint's allegations could support that conclusion depending on the facts. The decision turned on interpreting the MCPA's remedy section and applying state court standards for noneconomic damages rather than limiting recovery to pecuniary losses.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of attorney fees requested by Paul Newman, former counsel to Chapter 13 debtors Allen and Juli Smith, after the court found that Newman had filed an incomplete petition and unnecessary motions due to inadequate investigation. The bankruptcy court reduced the requested hours and hourly rate based on the quality of representation but awarded nothing, citing incompetence and a potential Rule 11 violation. On appeal, the district court affirmed the reductions in hours and rate as reasonable and not clearly erroneous. However, it reversed the total denial of fees, holding that imposing sanctions without prior notice to Newman violated due process requirements. The matter was remanded for the bankruptcy court to either hold a noticed hearing on sanctions or award the reduced fees of $1,950 plus costs.

procedure

The case involved consumers who filed a class action against a car dealership and a finance company assignee, alleging that they were not given copies of their retail installment contracts at the time of signing, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act and several Michigan consumer protection and vehicle sales statutes. The court denied the dealership's motion to dismiss the TILA and state claims, granted the assignee's motion to dismiss only the TILA claim due to statutory limits on assignee liability, and denied the motion to compel arbitration after finding the clause substantively unconscionable under Michigan law for failing to disclose limitations on remedies. The reasoning relied on the TILA's disclosure requirements and Regulation Z, the FTC holder rule preserving consumer claims against assignees under state law, and standards for evaluating contract unconscionability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 1990 lawsuit by several Michigan Indian tribes against the state governor, alleging failure to negotiate in good faith for class III gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The parties settled via a 1993 consent judgment requiring the tribes to pay 8% of net casino win to the state only while they retained the exclusive right to operate electronic games of chance. After Michigan voters approved Proposal E in 1996 authorizing Detroit casinos and new tribes later obtained federal approval for their own compacts, the tribes ceased payments, prompting the governor's motion to compel compliance. The court denied the motion, holding that the tribes' exclusivity ended on February 18, 1999, when the new tribal compacts took effect, thereby terminating the payment obligation under the judgment's plain terms.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case reached the district court on remand from the Sixth Circuit after the parties requested an opportunity to file a joint motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The underlying dispute had previously produced rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment and on the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement and asked that the earlier opinions and orders be vacated and the action dismissed with prejudice. The court reviewed the joint motion and granted the requested relief, vacating both the February 1999 summary-judgment decision and the August 1999 fee order before dismissing the case with prejudice and without an award of costs.

procedure

This case originated in 1967 as a class action by African-American students and parents alleging unconstitutional segregation in the Benton Harbor Area School District and related districts, resulting in liability findings against multiple defendants and a 1981 remedial desegregation order that included magnet programs, interdistrict transfers, and ongoing court supervision. Decades later, two charter schools (Benton Harbor Community Academy and Benton Harbor Charter School) petitioned to receive state school aid funding, which the court considered in light of changes in Michigan education law authorizing such schools. The court granted the petitions but conditioned approval on requirements including racially diverse board membership, annual diversity training, detailed reporting on student enrollment and demographics, faculty recruitment efforts, and cooperation with class representatives. The reasoning focused on ensuring that funding the charter schools would not undermine or interfere with the existing remedial plan's goals of eliminating racially identifiable schools and promoting integration across the affected districts.

civil rights

This case involves a taxpayer's petition under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A) to quash four IRS administrative summonses issued to banks and financial institutions for records pertaining to Thomas and Sharon Faber. The petitioner sought entry of default based on the government's delayed response, but the court denied that request because no summons had been issued or served. The government moved for summary denial of the petition, which the court granted in part by dismissing objections to the summonses' form, lack of prior notice, missing OMB control numbers, and the legal validity of administrative summonses. The court denied summary denial in part on the claim that the IRS had not made the required prima facie showing of good faith under United States v. Powell, allowing that issue to remain pending.

taxesprocedure

This case concerned the legality of Class III casino gaming at the Turtle Creek Casino operated by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians on lands taken into trust after October 17, 1988. The United States and the State of Michigan sought a preliminary injunction to halt the gaming, arguing it violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) because required approvals under 25 U.S.C. § 2719 had not been obtained. The Band countered that the land qualified for statutory exceptions, including as part of a restored reservation under § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii) or within its 1836 treaty lands. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and granted a stay of proceedings for up to eighteen months or until the National Indian Gaming Commission ruled on the Band's exception claims, finding those claims sufficiently plausible to warrant further administrative review rather than immediate injunctive relief.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Gould v. GTE North Inc., three hourly employees represented by the IBEW sued their employer and pension plan administrators under ERISA, alleging they were improperly denied participation in a 1996 early retirement incentive program called the Enhanced EAIP despite meeting age and service requirements. The employees claimed the Benefits Highlights brochure distributed by GTE, which served as a supplement to the summary plan description, did not mention any limits on the number of participants and therefore entitled them to benefits. The court granted summary judgment to two plaintiffs who had received and accepted the offer, holding that the brochure's terms controlled over other plan documents and contained no participant caps, while denying the third plaintiff's motion as moot because he had not received the mailing. The decision rested on the principle that summary plan descriptions prevail in ERISA disputes and must be interpreted according to their plain terms.

labor & employment

This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court's partial denial of a motion to lift the automatic stay or order abandonment of assets in debtor George Newpower's bankruptcy proceeding. Newpower, acting as president of New Properties, Inc., embezzled over $750,000 in funds loaned by shareholders Robert and his wife Kitchen for purchasing specific real estate parcels, using the money for personal purchases instead, and later pleaded guilty to embezzlement. The bankruptcy court included some traceable assets in the estate subject to the stay, but the district court reversed in part, holding that $582,463 in traceable property could not be estate property because Newpower held the funds only as an agent for the Kitchens or the corporation under an express trust, never acquiring a personal interest. The court reasoned that agency and trust principles under Michigan law prevented the embezzled funds and assets from becoming part of the bankruptcy estate, requiring the stay to be lifted as to those amounts.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure